Long-sleeve undershirt #21 Auburn

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So without casebook play 3.5.6 Sit B you would obviously allow a player to wear tights. It certainly seems inconsistent to me to ban tights, but allow a long-sleeve undershirt.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Any more inconsistent than to regulate the color of headbands but allow any color for a hair control device?

How about this loophole? A player, with blue shorts, can, by rule, wear blue tights down to just above his knees. He can also wear the longest blue socks that the can find in a store, or even have long blue socks specially made by his grandmother, from the same material as the tights, above the level of his knees. The rules, other than a single reference to black socks worn by the officials, don't address socks. Ipso facto, legal full length tights.

3-5-6: Tights shall be a single solid color similar to the predominant color of the pants; the length shall be above the knee.

3.5.6 SITUATION B: A player, for religious reasons, may not wear shorts. Would he/she be able to wear tights under the basketball uniform shorts, warmups or a skirt instead of shorts? RULING: NFHS basketball uniform rules do not require that the uniform pants be "shorts." However, undergarments or tights may not be worn which extend below the pants, therefore wearing tights “below the uniform shorts” would be illegal. The player could wear long pants or a skirt as the uniform "bottom" and be in compliance. (3-4)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How about this loophole? A player, with blue shorts, can, by rule, wear blue tights down to just above his knees. He can also wear the longest blue socks that the can find in a store, or even have long blue socks specially made by his grandmother, from the same material as the tights, above the level of his knees. The rules, other than a single reference to black socks worn by the officials, don't address socks. Ipso facto, legal full length tights.

Even worse, a player from the HOME team can do that!

Shorts are not required to be any particular color under NFHS rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Shorts are not required to be any particular color under NFHS rules.

They are if the player wants to wear mid length tights, in a vice-versa kind of way:
3-5-6: Tights shall be a single solid color similar to the predominant color of the pants.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

They are if the player wants to wear mid length tights, in a vice-versa kind of way:
3-5-6: Tights shall be a single solid color similar to the predominant color of the pants.

Billy,
There is no rule about what color the shorts must be. You have only pointed out that if an undergarment is worn below the shorts that extends down the leg so as to be visible, then that undergarment must match the color of the shorts. It's not the other way around.

My point is that a home player can wear a white jersey, blue shorts, blue compression shorts down to just about the knee, and blue socks that extend up high. Unless a referee believes that to be confusing, this apparel is legal.

I don't like it.

[Nevadaref]

I posted that undershirts were a POE just two seasons ago and that officials should be diligent about enforcing this rule.

Someone deleted it.

I don't understand why. That was valuable information, which contributed in a meaningful way to the discussion topic.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I posted that undershirts were a POE just two seasons ago and that officials should be diligent about enforcing this rule.

Someone deleted it.

I don't understand why. That was valuable information, which contributed in a meaningful way to the discussion topic.

It also contained a personal attack. Feel free to post the POE again and your opinion about enforcing it.

[Nevadaref]

Ok, thinking back I can certainly see that angle given the history between the two posters, but I really was trying to stick to discussing the NFHS rules and use them to refute the attitude expressed by the other poster. Of course, I do get frustrated with that sentiment, and therefore, perhaps I didn't meet that aim as fully as intended. BTW you have been doing a heck of a job lately of babysitting.